Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under fees...

dmgerbino says...

Published: October 19, 2009
In the latest attack on overdraft fees charged by banks, Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee, introduced legislation on Monday to limit the number of fees charged to one per month, and to require a bank to seek consumers’ permission to cover debit card and check purchases that would push their bank balance below zero.

Read the rest of the article at the New York Times

Filed under: Fees

alksndra says...

"In an unprecedented move, FIU announced it will charge some guests of graduates a $5 admission to the fall's commencement ceremony, angering students who feel they have already been hit hard with increases.

For the first time in its history, Florida International University will ask students' family members and friends to pay admission to watch their graduate walk across the stage at commencement.

The 5,500 graduating students will get 2 free tickets. Beyond those, it will cost $5 each for up to 3 additional tickets.

So far, FIU appears to be the only one of Florida's 11 public universities seeking help with commencement costs, according to state education officials.

The decision reached by FIU's Commencement Committee is another sign of hard economic times made worse by steep cuts in state funding.

FIU said it had no choice but to break tradition and seek help in financing the massive events."

Guess we know where the money that went to the new Marlins Stadium didn't go to.

via Miami Herald

 

Filed under: fees

daverichey1 says...

Let's face it. An increase, whether 25 or 100 percent, for fishing and hunting licenses is needed. More conservation officers are needed, but where will the money come from to pay for them and other state programs?

It will come from the same people who have always paid for it: the anglers and hunters. We help fund so many programs, and yet the Department of Natural Resources is always broke. Some sorely needed officers will probably be laid off or have the hours cut.

Some senseless business Where will this madness of state government end? It will end with fishermen and hunters funding more of the increases. And as we pay more for the privilege to fish and hunt, other user groups will skate and not pay anything. It's always been so, and that ticks me off.

I well remember when anglers no longer were able to let their wife fish free on their license, and when Mama had to buy her own fishing license, and people griped. And then, when salmon were planted in the Great Lakes, it was determined that anglers had to have a special Salmon-Trout Stamp to fish for those species, and they griped but paid their way. That Salmon-Trout Stamp, which was a lovely thing to look at, eventually gave way to the All-Species designation that we have today. The loveliness is gone, but we can fish for those species.

Fishermen and hunters have paid their way, and carried other user groups on their shoulders for many years. That monkey on our back has turned into a two-ton mountain gorilla, and it's time for other outdoor user groups to pony up some money.

We have nonresident fishing and hunting licenses, and those sportsmen from out of stamp must pay more to fish or hunt than a resident. That's only fair.

Some hard questions and more difficult answers But, I ask you these questions: Why don't we have a resident and nonresident forager's permit to pick berries, leeks, mushrooms and nuts? Why not charge the backpacker, biker, canoer and hiker for the privilege they've taken for granted forever?

I am not anti-tourist but I am against those user groups that do not carry their weight. There are areas all through the northern counties where hordes of mushroom pickers flock from out-of-state. Some of them pick as many mushrooms as they can find but spend very little while enjoying our natural resources. They have a free ride.

They take but give nothing back. Why should foragers skate while anglers and hunters foot all the bills?

Is there any reason why bird watchers can participate in their passion without paying for the privilege. The backpacker, biker, canoer and hiker are putting nothing into the economy but are using the outdoors. Shouldn't a canoer have a canoeing license?

Every user group should pay Should there be user fees for all outdoor activities? Granted, anglers catch fish and take them home to eat. The same is true for hunters who shoot bear, deer, elk, grouse, hares, pheasants, quail, rabbits and woodcock, so I'd appreciate the DNR telling me why berry, leek, nut and mushroom pickers can pick and eat, and why a foragers license isn't required?

Where is the fairness here? Obviously, there isn't any. But there should be a user fee for all outdoor activities. Everyone who uses the outdoors in one way or another should pay something for that privilege.

The backpacker, biker, canoer and hiker might gripe that theirs is a non-consumptive sport. OK, I can agree with that but one fact remains: why should they be granted special privileges? They too are part of an ever-increasing population on the water and in the field. They deserve to pay a fee to use the outdoors.

Hell, I can hear it now. Richey must have fallen out of his tree stand, landed on his noggin and is having a bad case of the stupids. Nah, it's nothing so dramatic as that.

It's just that this planet is crowded, and many user groups rely on anglers and hunters to foot all the bills to manage our resources. We've been doing it for years, and manufacturers who produce boating, fishing and hunting tackle pay big bucks in excise taxes. I can't understand why they don't gripe about why others never pay their fair share.

Is anyone out there listening? There's no doubt in my mind that my rantings will fall on some deaf ears, and this everybody-pays philosophy will be as popular as a hobo crashing a family reunion. However, it's time for all other outdoor user groups to begin paying for their outdoor pleasures.

Raise the fishing and hunting license fees a modest amount, and start making other groups pay to watch the state's birds or pick mushrooms on state land. Each, in his own way, is using our environment without paying for that privilege.

Let the resident foragers pay a $5 user fee and the nonresident can get tapped for $10. Require a different type of higher fee for those who pick and sell mushrooms. Canoers pay a rental fee, but they pay no user fee to travel downstream backwards. The examples could go on and on, but any right-thinking person should realize that everyone should pay ... instead of just anglers, boaters and hunters.

The DNR needs money. How about charging a user fee? Lansing, is anyone paying attention down there?

Granted, we'd need more conservation officers for enforcement but we already need them. It would generate more state income to pay for those officers, and increased revenue might lead to better relations between the sportsmen and the regulatory agencies that are being paid to wisely manage our resources.

Our resources are not being managed wisely unless all user groups pay their fair share. And that, my friends, is the end of that story.

Filed under: fees

desdemona says...

The U.S. government plans to propose broad new rules Monday that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, seeking to give consumers greater freedom to use their computers or cellphones to enjoy videos, music and other legal services that hog bandwidth.

The move would make good on a campaign promise to Silicon Valley supporters like Google Inc. from President Barack Obama, but will trigger a battle with phone and cable companies like AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp., which don't want the government telling them how to run their networks.

The proposed rules could change how operators manage their networks and profit from them, and the everyday online experience of individual users. Treating Web traffic equally means carriers couldn't block or slow access to legal services or sites that are a drain on their networks or offered by rivals.

The rules will escalate a fight over how much control the government should have over Internet commerce. The Obama administration is taking the side of Google, Amazon.com Inc. and an array of smaller businesses that want to profit from offering consumers streaming video, graphics-rich games, movie and music downloads and other services.

Julius Genachowski, head of the Federal Communications Commission, is also expected to propose in a speech Monday, for the first time, that rules against blocking or slowing Web traffic would apply to wireless-phone companies, according to people familiar with the plan.

Getty Images

Julius Genachowski

FCC
FCC

Wireless carriers, which have been among the fiercest opponents of such regulation, continue to restrict what kind of data travels over the airwaves they control. For example, earlier this year, AT&T restricted an Internet-phone service from Skype so iPhone users couldn't place calls on AT&T's cellular network. At the time, AT&T cited network congestion concerns.

"We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks -- such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content -- to the benefit of their consumers," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA, the wireless industry's trade group.

If the FCC does force U.S. wireless carriers to open their networks to data-heavy applications like streaming video, it could push them beyond the limited capacity they have. Already, in areas like New York and San Francisco, a high concentration of iPhones has caused many AT&T customers to complain about degrading service.

In such a scenario, wireless carriers may have to rethink how much they charge for data plans or even cap how much bandwidth individuals get, said Julie Ask, a wireless analyst at Jupiter Research.

The FCC's proposal will take into account the bandwidth limitations faced by wireless carriers, according to people familiar with the plan, and would ask how such rules should apply to current networks.

The rules could encourage big Internet companies to launch new data-intensive services by establishing that their traffic can't be slowed or blocked. In the business market, companies that make Internet-phone services or video-conferencing software may invest more heavily in those services, some analysts say.

The rules are likely to be a big boon to smaller tech companies, like Silicon Valley start-ups and small makers of mobile software for Apple Inc.'s iPhone and other devices, that wouldn't be able to afford paying Internet providers for special access.

"Any company or piece of software that becomes popular, generating a lot of traffic, would tend to benefit," said Jonathan Zittrain, the co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

The FCC has four "net neutrality" principles, which call on Internet providers to avoid restricting or delaying access to legal Internet sites and services. Carriers are permitted to block access to illegal services and sites.

Mr. Genachowski is expected to propose the agency clarify its current principles and turn them into formal rules. He will also tack on a new one, which would require carriers practice "reasonable" network management. The agency will ask for guidance on how to define "reasonable."

Most Internet providers have resisted "net neutrality" rules in the past, saying they have a right to control traffic on networks they own and it's not a good idea for the government to micro-manage Internet traffic.

Phone companies including AT&T have argued that they can live with the FCC's existing principles, but they've argued there's no reason to put more formal rules put into place.

Representatives from AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Comcast and Sprint Nextel Corp. declined to comment ahead of the FCC's anticipated announcement.

The proposals come as the FCC faces a federal appeals court case over its authority to regulate Web traffic. Comcast is fighting an FCC decision last year to ding it for violating the agency's "net neutrality" principles when it slowed traffic for some subscribers who were downloading big files. Comcast said it didn't violate any rules because the FCC had never formally adopted any, but it did change how it manages its network.

Republicans are likely to oppose the FCC's new proposal -- both at the FCC and in Congress -- arguing that the FCC is trying to fix problems that don't exist and that the agency should take a more hands-off approach to the fast-changing industry.

"With only a few isolated instances of complaints alleging net neutrality-like abuses ever having been filed, it is a mistake," said Randolph May, president of Free State Foundation, a free-market oriented think tank.

The concept of network neutrality originated with the nation's longtime telephone monopoly. AT&T and its successors were prohibited from giving any phone call preference in how quickly it was connected. Since the Internet was born on phone wires, the concept survived into the Internet age largely by default.

That notion was challenged toward the end of the 1990s, as cable companies began offering Internet service. Cable companies argued since they were content companies not phone companies, the principle of network neutrality didn't apply to them.

Phone companies responded by getting into the content business as well, with television service. As a result, both the cable companies and phone companies had incentives to create conditions on the Internet -- either through pricing or slowing or speeding up certain sites -- to favor their own content.

In 2005, the FCC deregulated the Internet business, by ruling that Internet providers were communications companies and not phone companies and, importantly, were therefore no longer subject to the old phone rules such as network neutrality.

The FCC instead created its four "guiding principles" for protecting network neutrality. They were vague enough to embolden those looking for ways around it. Major phone companies like AT&T subsequently said they were considering creating "fast lanes" on the Internet, available at a higher price -- plans they put on hold amid an outcry.

Now, by codifying the principle, the FCC is seeking to limit erosion of network neutrality.

Mr. Genachowski is expected to set plans to open a formal rule-making process on the issue at the FCC's October meeting. The rules would have to be approved by a majority of the FCC's five-person board; whose three Democrats support net neutrality.

Filed under: Fees

Wayne Schulz says...

The end of the year represents a time when we should all start to come into the busier time of our business.

The last half of the year is traditionally when companies are upgrading their accounting systems or thinking of starting projects that are intended to improve their reporting.

Now is the  time when you should review the rates you’re charging to clients and consider changes – in advance of the busier and hopefully more billable year end. Since all of our costs tend to rise from year to year – it is only fair that your rates should rise as well.

With that in mind, I have several suggestions about billing that have worked exceptionally well for me (aka clients don’t complain or question).

Implement these today and I’d be surprised if you could not start increasing your bottom line $20,000 or more next year.  I’ve implemented these tips myself each of the last several years. I don’t recommend you make a big deal out of it or spend days writing an apologetic letter about how the economy sucks and you’re “forced” to make a “small” adjustment to rates.

Just “man or woman up” and get in there and adjust your billing practices. In this economy there’s no room for bashful billers. Here’s my four tips that will work for you – because they’ve worked for me!

Read the full post at  thelifestyleconsultant.wordpress.com

 

Filed under: fees

abotis says...

That's what we're all waiting for: With the upcoming new version NetNewsWire won't support NewsGator synchronization and finally support google reader.

Filed under: fees

px says...

Wachovia, BofA, Citibank Sued Over 'Bad-Faith' Overdraft Fees (via @consumerist ) http://tr.im/ukxQ

Filed under: Fees

phaedrus says...

There are fees for checked luggage, reservation changes and even pillows and blankets. And now, one airline is poised to start levying a fee when you simply buy a ticket.

Filed under: fees

cybergal says...

Due to a very busy work schedule, I will only feature 3 - 5 posts a day. I will try to publish something Mon - Sat., but be patient, as I learn to do a more complicated juggling act with work, blogs, friends and down time. Thanks for subscribing.

debit cards, fees, credit cards, banks
With credit being a problem, debit cards are becoming more popular and banks are getting creative with their "fees".
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b4107000370790.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

Priests, sexual urge testing, Catholic Church
Until I saw the word "voluntary" I thought maybe the Church has finally learned. These tests will be voluntary for the Priests-to-be. Just more window dressing in a house fully engulfed in flames:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7700710.stm

archeology, Hebrew, King David, Bible
Oldest bit of Hebrew scripture found. Kind of nice to know some things don't change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm

Filed under: fees